Israel and Universal Jurisdiction

 

By Prof. Tony Hall
Source

maxresdefault_2_a957e.jpg

In the Oct. 26edition of False Flag Weekly News it was reported that law makers in Israel were considering a new statute that would criminalize BDS supporters including by subjecting them to heavy jail time.

In our brief exchange on the story, Dr. Kevin Barrett and I considered the possibility that there would be efforts to project the same law to people outside Israel in the name of universal jurisdiction. Colleen McGuire took the discussion further by pointing to the fine of $18,000 imposed by an Israeli court in a civil action involving two BDS activists, women of both Palestinian and Jewish ancestry. Their letter persuaded New Zealand performer Lorde not to perform in Tel Aviv. The civil case was brought by a group with tickets to the concert who claim to have been traumatized by Lorde’s decision.

Although there is not now any means for the Israeli court ruling to be enforced in Aotearoa (New Zealand) the ruling nevertheless moves the markers and sends a signal of where juridical trajectories are being pointed by powerful interests.

The concept of universal jurisdiction is a two-edged sword for the Israeli government. On the one hand the advancement of the concept through the development of enforcement techniques poses threats that IDF and related Deep State operatives might be apprehended and tried outside Israel for international crimes committed inside Israel and the territories it controls. On the other hand, the application of the principles of universal jurisdiction might offer a means of exercising and expanding the imperial powers inherited from the old Anglo-American empire.

These ideas jumped out at me when I recently read a Mondoweiss story beginning with an account of the Israeli government’s reply to an Israeli Supreme Court ruling concerning the new Regulation Law. It is aimed at trying to regularize the nature of land title beneath illegal Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. The Mondoweiss story began as follows:

The Israeli government has recently claimed that it can “legislate anywhere in the world”, that it is “entitled to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries”, and that “is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires”. This was written in an official response letter to the Supreme Court last month.

Questions concerning the reach of Israeli jurisdiction in the international community were front and centre in the trial of Adolf Eichmann initiated in 1961. In a brief essay looking at the locating of the Eichmann trial in Israel, Andrew J. Batog noted

In the Eichmann trial, the court in Israel set another important modern precedent in the advancement of universal jurisdiction. Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann had been apprehended in Argentina by Israeli intelligence agents and brought to trial in Israel. In a detailed opinion the court appealed to the idea of the natural law to find universal jurisdiction applied.[1] It found the crime of “genocide against the Jewish people” to be unequivocally a crime against accepted international law[2].

I paid particular attention to the footnote describing the court’s dependence on the 17th century Dutch jurist Grotius. Grotius was cited as follows to justify what some saw as a kidnapping of Eichmann away from from Argentina

Eichmann 36 I.L.R. 1 (Dist. Ct. Jerusalem, 1961), at 15. Citing to Grotius, the court in Eichmann reflected:

“According to natural justice, the victim may take the law into his hand and himself punish the criminal, and it is also permissible for any person of integrity to inflict punishment upon the criminal; but all such natural rights have been limited by organized society and have been delegated to the courts of law.”

In Grotius’ vision of natural justice, it seems, some room was left for the principle that might makes right.

International and transnational trade law is another important site of experimentation in the evolving concept of universal jurisdiction. As I see it, the primary role of the WTO created after the demise of the Soviet Union was to establish a single platform from which to charter global corporations not constrained by national borders and the sovereign jurisdiction of national governments. As it is now, corporations continue, in theory at least, to be subject to the authority of the sovereign national governments that created their charters thereby investing in them their legal capacities and personality.

There are unmistakable anticipations of some edified form of Israeliocentric universal jurisdiction associated with the will to build in Jerusalem a Third Jewish Temple along with reconstituting a governing Sanhedrin. The universalist claims made by proponents of this religious agenda including Christian Zionists have profound geopolitical implications that figure into all sorts of issues including the future of the BDS movement.

Advertisements

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Image result for Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

August 23, 2018

Iran’s Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness

By Kevin Barrett (Truth Jihad) for The Saker Blog

Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness: Iran’s “Trump Card” Against US-Israeli Aggression

Do religion, spirituality, and ethics have any strategic significance?

Increasingly, since the time of Machievelli, the Western answer to that question has been “no.” According to the dominant view of Western elites, religious factors are usually a strategic liability rather than an asset. A spiritual soldier, according to this view, is less willing to fight. An ethical commander is less willing to make the hard decisions that lead to victory. And a religious society is likely to be scientifically and technologically backwards, and therefore unequipped with the latest weapons systems and strategies.

This dominant Machievellian view has been influenced by Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes famously argued that humans have emerged from a state of nature, the war of all against all, by gradual conquests of ever-larger kingdoms, each of which is tyrannically ruled by a single sovereign. The sovereign tyrant crushes anyone who spreads disorder or challenges his authority, thereby pacifying his realm and facilitating commerce and technological innovation. All human progress, according to Hobbesians, is the product of tyranny. Therefore, tyranny is good! What’s more, by wars of aggression the tyrant enlarges the boundaries of his state, brings more peoples and lands into his realm, and thereby creates even more peace and prosperity. Therefore, wars of aggression are good![1]

The Machievellian-Hobbesian view, through a Nietzschean transmutation of values, takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is evil—tyranny and aggressive warfare—and redefines it as good. Simultaneously, it takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is good—resistance to tyranny and refusal to submit to, or perpetrate, aggression—and redefines it as evil.

Such a psychopathic philosophy of statecraft and war is clearly inimical to God-given human nature. By what process has our planet’s most technologically, economically, and politically powerful civilization adopted as its guiding principle a psychopathic philosophy that the 99% of humans who are not psychopaths—the vast majority of all populations, including those of psychopath-ruled countries—instinctively reject?

The triumph of psychopathy in Western statecraft is the product of the West’s post-Christian culture. Christianity, more than any other religion, rigorously preaches peace, as exemplified by the prophet Jesus’s (PBUH) injunction to “turn the other cheek,” his refusal to support anti-Roman militancy, and his insistence that “the meek will inherit the earth.” Unfortunately, even after the teachings of Jesus had spread, it became obvious that no then-existing human society could organize itself according to such principles and survive. Mainstream Christianity, largely authored by Paul and institutionalized by the Nicean Council, became the official religion of the warlike Roman Empire by emphasizing Jesus’s statement “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and telling people to let the psychopathic Caesars rule. This amounted to abdicating religion’s role as the foundation of human society, fostering a schizoid split between “good” religion and “evil” politics. (Why good people would and should allow their societies to be dominated by evil leaders was never adequately explained by Constantinian Christians.)

Western civilization was constructed around this schizoid split between religion, the realm of mere ideals, and a completely different and vastly uglier set of political and social realities. This framework fostered the emergence of Machievelli, who threw religion and its ideals out the window. As Christianity lost its hold over the West, materialist-atheist Machievellianism, barely tempered by wooly-headed and rationally-indefensible humanism, became the order of the day.

Today, psychopathic Machievellians rule the West. Their subjects, who are mainly either wooly-headed humanists or residual Christians, are not psychopaths. They feel an instinctive revulsion toward aggression and tyranny. So the Western rulers are forced to dupe their subjects by disguising aggression as defense, and disguising tyranny as “freedom” or “democracy.”

The history of US wars during the past five decades shows that psychopathic leaders can indeed dupe their subjects, at least for a certain period, into believing that an obvious war of aggression is actually defensive, and that they are fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” rather than tyranny. But such deceptions have an Achilles heel: They quickly wear off as the truth emerges and as the public tires of the unjust war.

The case of the US war on Vietnam exemplifies this process. During the period that US neocolonial aggression against Vietnam was relatively unknown to the public (the 1950s and early 1960s) it was possible to wage the war without encountering major problems with morale and public opinion. Then when it was necessary to escalate the war to the point that it could no longer be hidden from the public, US leaders orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin deception to create the illusion that the US was under attack and that North Vietnam was the aggressor. This deception, grotesquely obvious as it was, worked for a few years, thanks to the compliant media. But gradually the truth about the US war on Vietnam—that it constituted immoral aggression in service to tyranny—leaked out to the public. Soon the American people in general, and US troops in particular, turned against the war, making it unsustainable over the long term.

The same process happened fifteen years ago with the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars, planned many years before they were launched, were pre-legitimized by the false flag operation of September 11th, 2001, whose purpose was to create the impression that the coming wars were defensive responses to an unprovoked attack on America. Once again, as in the case of Vietnam, the ruse worked for a few years. But as the truth about US aggression and tyranny leaked out, the public, and a substantial segment of the military, once again turned against the wars.[2]

The history of the US wars on Vietnam and Iraq underlines two critically important strategic facts. First, the US cannot hope to win a war with air power alone; victory requires a substantial and politically problematic commitment of troops on the ground. Second, any major commitment of US troops can only be made under the pretext that the US is engaging in defense rather than aggression; and even when extraordinary means are used to create this pretext (as in the case of 9/11) the legitimizing effect quickly wears off in the face of determined resistance by the targets of US aggression. The more time goes by, the more the public and elements of the military turn against the war.

US decision makers are, for the most part, aware of the above-described facts. They know that smaller wars, where they can quickly declare victory and go home (as in Grenada and the Iraq war of 1990) are much more likely to be successful than larger and more ambitious wars (Vietnam and the post-9/11 Iraq invasion and occupation). They dread committing major US ground forces to any large scale land war in Asia, knowing that the results are almost certain to be negative, and quite possibly catastrophic. After the Iraq debacle, the idea of a major US occupation of another large Middle Eastern country is, for all practical purposes, politically unthinkable.

The above considerations illustrate an important asymmetry between US and Iranian capabilities in any prospective future conflict. US leaders are in the unenviable position of having to wage all-out psychological warfare against their own population in order to brainwash their people and troops into accepting ongoing hostilities. (Such brainwashing campaigns have become more difficult in the internet era.) They are also faced with the problem that the longer hostilities persist, the more the public and an element of the military is likely to turn against the war effort.

Iran’s leaders face a very different “morale curve” with respect to prospective hostilities with the US. The Iranian people know that any US aggression against their country is in fact aggression; there is no conceivable way that US leaders could trick Iran’s people into believing that a US attack on Iran was somehow “defensive.” Clearly Iran’s leaders will direct a population that, in accordance with God-given (non-psychopathic) human nature, will rally to the defense of their nation. Additionally, the very strong element of religion in Iran will contribute to the spiritual strength of a population ready to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in warfare. And finally, the fact that Iran’s majority religion is Islam, which teaches that God not only authorizes but strongly encourages and rewards sacrificing in defensive warfare—a religious outlook institutionalized in the Islamic Republic—bodes well for Iran’s prospects in any war with the USA, and for its ability to deter such a war.

It is worth noting that the Machievellian-Hobbesian preference for a tyrannical and immoral sovereign is being tested by the presidency of Donald Trump. The immorality and tyrannical egotism of Trump have aroused fervent opposition to the man and his policies, both in the USA itself and around the world. It seems doubtful that an unpopular leader like Trump could successfully sustain any major, long-term military campaign against Iran, especially if it involved large numbers of “boots on the ground.” That Trump himself ran for president calling for a drawdown of the US presence in the Middle East, based on his recognition that the Iraq, Libya, and Syria wars have been disasters—a position that contrasted sharply with the more hawkish, interventionist posture of Hillary Clinton—makes it even unlikelier that he could betray and anger his supporters by launching an even more dangerous and difficult war on Iran. Not only would at least half of Trump’s supporters tend to oppose such a move, his extreme detractors, who are legion, would oppose it even more fervently. Any initial war fever, which Trump might hope would distract from his domestic problems, would quickly wear off.

Iran’s leadership, in marked contrast with America’s, is grounded in morals and ethics, not Machievellian-Hobbesian nihilism. Those morals and ethics derive from the religion of Islam, a 1400-year-old tradition that has proven to harmonize well with God-given human nature. Though the various segments of Iran’s population vary in their religious attitudes and behavior, the vast majority accept the basic morality and ethics that convince them, like all non-psychopathic humans, that aggression must be resisted. Thus Iran’s leadership finds itself in relative harmony with its population on the question of national self defense. That means that in any serious conflict with Trump’s USA, Iran will have staying power, while the US will wilt as the fire burns longer and hotter.

  1. For a detailed exposition of this view, see Ian Morris, War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). 
  2. The facts that 9/11 was a false flag, and that the 9/11 wars were primarily designed to promote Israel’s interests rather than America’s, turned a segment of the US military, and even some prominent strategists including Zbigniew Brzezinski, against those wars. See: SFRC Testimony — Zbigniew Brzezinski, February 1, 2007 (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2007/BrzezinskiTestimony070201.pdf); “Dr. Alan Sabrosky: “100% Certain That 9/11 Was a Mossad Operation” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xTsWsLbV4); Global Warfare: “We’re Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran… – Gen. Wesley Clarke” (https://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166). 

 

Dr. Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon on Phobias and Politics

July 18, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

phobia.jpg

https://www.patreon.com/

Introduction by Dr. Kevin Barrett

In his new article “Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity” Gilad Atzmon argues Frankfurt School driven identity politics represents “a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’”

Gilad’s new article was inspired by the Deep Truth Conference Zionism panel that he and I participated in. (Here is the link to the whole conference.)

In the new article, Gilad writes:

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam….But fear of Muslims might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century.”

Gilad’s point—that we need to distinguish rational from irrational elements of Islamophobia, Judeophobia, homophobia, etc.—is well taken. But if we accept his invitation and ask ourselves “how rational is the Islamophobia around us” we discover that it is almost entirely irrational. While the West has indeed been “actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims,” the chances that any given Western person will suffer or die in a Muslim revenge attack are essentially zero. (Terrorism is statistically a non-threat, far less dangerous than bathtubs and lightning, and Muslims commit less than 5% of the terrorist attacks in the West.) An American who fears Muslims because the West has been destroying Muslims is just as crazy as an American who fears Native Americans or Blacks or Chinese or Hindus or Buddhists because of the crimes of the West against those groups.

It is, of course, conceivable that some Muslim or Muslims (or Native Americans, Blacks, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) will one day manage to wreak such massive revenge against the West, perhaps though a bioweapon targeting white people, that in retrospect fear of whichever group the “terrorist” emerged from will seem rational. But obviously hating on people today will not prevent such an attack tomorrow! On the contrary, it will make it more likely. Considered rationally, the Islamophobic discourse, which is actually a discourse of hate more than fear, is obviously counterproductive in terms of defusing the rather vague, nebulous, and improbable potential threats that might emerge from “angry Muslims” (or angry Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)

While ordinary Western people have no rational reason for Islamophobia, Zionist and neoliberal elites have good reasons to fear Islam. Muslims are the backbone of opposition to Zionism and usury, both of which are crucial to the neoliberal financier elites. To the extent that Islam triumphs, the Zionists and usury banksters will lose their ill-gotten gains along with most of their power and privileges. So the Zionist elite’s decision to orchestrate 9/11 in order to brainwash ordinary people into irrationally hating Islam was indeed rational, given that elite’s desire to maintain and expand its power and privileges.

 

political correctness

Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm

June 25, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

Moderator: Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett – Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Judeophobia: Let’s Define Our Terms – 1:30

Philip Giraldi – How Jewish Power Sustains the Israel Narrative – 25:45

Gilad Atzmon – Truth, Truthfulness, and Palestine – 40:35

Alan Sabrosky – The Impact of Zionist Influence in the U.S.- 1:07:05

Jeremy Rothe-Kushel – Talpiot and Unit 8200: The Global Cyber Agenda for Kill-Switch Domination–2:03:15

Q & A from our online audience by email — 2:54:01

For resources referenced by the Deep Truth speakers, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/resources. For information about the Deep Truth conference, go to http://www.DeepTruth.info/about

Kevin Barrett on Gilad and ID politics.

Ahead of my current USA tour, Kevin Barrett recorded this brilliant short promo.

USA DATES, May 2018: NY, WI, IL, CO, OE and CA

 

Monday 7 May, 2018 @ 7 pm, Africa and Zionism – Dissecting anti-black racism in Israel and beyond, led by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan and Gilad Atzmon, ,39 Eldridge St 4th Fl, Chinatown, NYC

Tuesday 8 May,  2018 @ 7 pm, Truth, Truthfulness & Palestine – a talk and Q&A with Gilad Atzmon,  353 West 48th Street (2nd Floor), room 1, NYC

Thursday 10 May, 6.30 – 8 pm ,Truth, Truthfulness & Palestine – a talk and Q&A with Gilad Atzmon followed by a music party. Meeting @ Wil Mar Center, Mendota Rook, 953 Jenifer St. Madison, WI

Friday 11 May, 8 pm Truth, Truthfulness and Palestine, a talk and Q&A with Gilad Atzmon –  AL Nahda 10555 Southwest Highway, Worth, IL (Chicago)

Saturday 12 May, Rich Forer and Gilad Atzmon with WE ARE CHANGE Denver 6.30 pm. 7401 W. 59th St, Arvada, CO.

Sunday 13 May, 12.30 Rich Forer and Gilad Atzmon,Truth and Truthfulness in Americaprivate meeting in Denver, Co. Please contact me if you want to attend.

Sunday 13 May, 3.00 pm Jazz & Beyond,Come and see how Gilad blends, bop with Middle Eastern folk music.  The Mercury Café, 2199 California St, Denver. CO

Monday 14 May, Jazz night, Dan Schulte -bass, Fred Ingram – drums, Steve Cleveland – kb. 7:30 pm till 9 pm, Sanctuary at the Southminster Presbyterian Church, 12250 SW Denney Road, Beaverton, Oregon

Tuesday 15 May, Today is the Day, Truth, Truthfulness and Palestine,   The Clackamas Truth and Inquiry Group at 15815 SE 82nd Dr., Clackamas, OR in the Denny’s Banquet Room at 7 pm.

Wednesday 16 May 7 – 9 pm Gilad with Jason Hanna and the Bullfighters at the Riviera Supper Club, 7777 University Ave. LA Mesa CA 91941 (San Diego)

Thursday 17 May, Morning talk in SD. This event is private – if you want to attend please contact Gilad.

Saturday 19 May2:00 PM, Gilad Atzmon in Los Angeles – Music by Fritz Heede and Gilad Atzmon  followed by a talk  on the current dystopia  by Gilad   1827 S Hope St, Los Angeles, CA 90015

Sunday 20 May, Santa Barbara. Ca TBA

Tuesday 22 May Bay Area. CA TBA

Should Putin Help Syria To liberate The Golan Heights?

Source 

By Kevin Barrett

In the wake of yet another United Nations vote reaffirming the unanimous position of the international community – that every square centimeter of land stolen by Israel in its 1967 war of aggression must be relinquished – Russian President Vladimir Putin has an unprecedented opportunity to bring peace to the Middle East and inaugurate a new multipolar era in international relations. He can do so by liberating the Occupied Golan Heights and returning it to to its rightful owner, the government of Syria.

Putin should immediate declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Golan. Russia has the anti-aircraft capabilities to do this. Then he should give the Israeli squatters one week to evacuate.

Though the Zionist-dominated Western media and its brainwashed following would erupt in curses and lamentations, everyone else on earth would be cheering for Putin.

President Obama would not object. Though he would undoubtedly issue a pro forma verbal protest, Obama would secretly rejoice at the humiliation inflicted on his arch-enemy Benjamin Netanyahu, and would make sure that the US did nothing to prevent the liberation of Golan.

Incoming President Trump, surrounded as he is by  Greater-Israel-humping Zionist lunatics, might issue an angry, bombastic tweet or two. But Putin and Trump seem to have an unspoken understanding; and by the time Trump took office the return of the Golan to Syria would be a fait accompli. After all, as Bibi knows too well, you can’t argue with facts on the ground. Trump would then have an opportunity to try out his new policy of making foreign nations pay for American protection, by demanding that Israel and its Rothschild patrons return the trillions of dollars they have gouged out of American pockets…and  then pay the US top dollar to ensure that Putin doesn’t go right ahead and liberate ALL of Palestine.

That’s the kind of deal that a savvy businessman like Trump shouldn’t refuse.

Putin’s liberation of Golan would make him a hero to the entire Middle East, indeed to most of the world. The “Arab street,” currently brainwashed into anti-Russian anti-Assad insanity by Zionist-Saudi media, would erupt in adulation. Zionist puppet rulers in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE and elsewhere would be overthrown by their jubilant, Putin-loving populations.

The population of Turkey, too, would undergo a massive pro-Putin shift, and Erdogan would be pushed even further down the road he is already traveling, into an even more cordial alliance with Russia. This would lead to the complete resolution of the problem in Syria, where even most of the “rebels” would be so overjoyed by the return of Golan that they would be willing to overlook their differences with Assad and Putin.

The Yemen war, too, would end, as the corrupt Ibn Saud dictatorship would fall like the rotten house of cards it is. Israel humbled, its endless bluffs finally called, and its capacity to wreak havoc limited, the Zionist entity would finally have to accept a peace deal along the lines drawn by dozens of UN resolutions: Complete return to the pre-1967 borders, right of return for all Palestinians,  proportional compensation both for returnees and for those who choose not to return, and Equal Protection Clauses for an Israel/Palestine that would move towards binational federation and ultimate union.

Putin’s achievement — reversing the perpetual train wreck of decades of US domination of the Middle East – would highlight the advantages of a multi-polar, non-American-exceptionalist world. Once UN resolutions on Israel-Palestine were finally honored, the global community would be in a position to persuade other recalcitrant entities (such as India vis-a-vis Kashmir) to accept reasonable UN-endorsed solutions.

Given all of the above arguments for a Russian liberation of Golan, are there any counter-arguments?

Only one. It’s called the “Samson Option”: Israel’s threat to inflict nuclear annihilation on the capitals of Europe and the Middle East if it is ever forced to accept United Nations demands that it withdraw from the Occupied Territories and accept Right of Return for the Palestinians.

So should Putin call Israel’s bluff?

Somebody will eventually have to. I say let’s do it now and get it over with.

Source

Kevin Barrett: Israel-Linked Forces Might Be Behind Murder in Ankara

Posted on December 22, 2016

Press TV

The recent assassination of the Russian ambassador in Ankara was possibly perpetrated by Israel-linked forces which want to destabilize Turkey and damage its warming relations with Moscow and Tehran, according to an American scholar and political analyst.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, an author, political commentator and a founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, made the remarks in a phone interview with Press TV on Thursday.

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry denied American involvement in the assassination of Russia’s envoy to Turkey, voicing concern about Ankara’s rhetoric against Washington.

Earlier, Turkey blamed US-based opposition cleric Fethullah Gulen for Monday’s assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey and tried to place blame on the United States for allowing Gulen to live in the country.

“It’s interesting that John Kerry feels it’s necessary to deny American involvement in the assassination of the Russian ambassador in Ankara,” Dr. Barrett said.

“And indeed it’s a real testament to the power of the internet, which has awakened so many people around the world to the reality that all sorts of dirty dealings have been going on under the cover of the mythical mainstream media pabulum that’s what pretty much people have been imbibing since the print press turned into a sort of daily news press back in the nineteenth century,” he stated.

“But today because we have such a wild plethora of news sources available, the really dirty laundry stuff that’s banned from the mainstream organs has gotten a lot of attention. And today people understand that these kinds of spy vs. spy games, political assassinations, false flags and other kinds of things are going on that you never really hear about in the mainstream [media],” the analyst noted.

“And that’s why when something like this happens, Kerry actually has to deny the possibility of American involvement because people now know that Operation Gladio, for example, which is an ongoing wave of NATO-sponsored terrorism and political assassinations, is run by the United States’ military and deep state,” he explained.

He said, “They shot the Pope a couple of decades ago.  They committed most of the supposed leftwing terrorism in Europe during Cold War.”

Gladio B continues

“And today Gladio B continues, killing people and blaming radical Islam for it. And Gladio is very much centered on Turkey,” said the author of Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle Against the 9/11 Big Lie.

“A majority of the people murdered during the Cold War era by the US military’s deep state Operation Gladio were in Turkey. So Turkey is a real focus,” he added.

He said the assassination, “it seems to have been calculated to try to ruin relations between Turkey and Russia. The first question that people today, the awakened people ask themselves is who benefits?”

“And we have seen this coup attempt against Erdogan, after which Erdogan was supported by Iran and Russia. The coup attempt has been blamed on Fethullah Gülen, who is a CIA-linked so-called Islamist who lives in Pennsylvania,” the commentator said.

“And elements of the US deep state were widely blamed for that coup attempt, which was also perhaps an attempt to ruin warming relations between Turkey, Russia and Iran,” he said.

“So the rumors are going wild and indeed being amplified by people who are in official positions in Russia and Turkey who are saying that this looks like may have been done by the usual sort of Gladio and/or Israel-linked forces to destabilize Turkey and ruin its warming relations with Moscow and Tehran,” the analyst said.

“Kerry himself may very well believe that the US had no role because the deep state is not usually connected to the State Department.  Everything is deniable, everything is compartmentalized. But Kerry has to deny, that’s part of his job. And it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to believe it,” the researcher concluded.

%d bloggers like this: